From the London Telegraph:

"Church of England clergy who deny the existence of God could soon find themselves facing heresy charges in new courts headed by bishops and advised by panels of theologians."Plans for the special tribunals, which critics fear will lead to 'witch-hunts' against liberal clergy, have been drawn up by a committee of the House of Bishops."

Hey guys, this isn't some esoteric side issue such as sprinkling vs. full-immersion baptism or the proper use of vestments. This is about whether or not the supreme authority over humanity is who the Bible says it is; if not, then the Bible has no authority and Christianity has no reason to exist. Might as well try to suggest that Hinduism can exist without the law of karma, or that Marxism can exist without the abolition of personal property rights, or that Rush Limbaugh could be a chapter president for NOW.

All churches should be careful as to what offenses they treat as the rough equivalents of misdemeanors and felonies. In my congregational Protestant mindset, I regard the vestment issue (see article) as the rough equivalent of a misdemeanor; evidently some in the Church of England disagree. As for "felonies," those who teach against those portions of doctrine immediately relevant to salvation (Articles I-V of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion) should be ousted; disbelieving in the existence of God certainly qualifies. Some lesser heresies may also necessitate ouster, depending on the degree to which the church's ability to function is disrupted, but the majority probably do not; such should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

My advice: if you don't believe in Anglicanism, don't join the Anglican Church. Religions and secular ideologies do not exist to be defined by people who don't believe in them.

Update: If all this seems rather harsh, consider a comment I made in an earlier post: "It is the height of religious intolerance - and intellectual dishonesty - for one to expect to serve as an official in a religious organization or to teach that religion in its seminaries if one disagrees with that religion's central creeds." Retired Episcopal archbishop John Shelby Spong is an example of the intolerance and dishonesty to which I refer. He prescribes for his church a "new reformation" that would discard all notions of the existence of the supernatural, including a supernatural God. Most atheists have the common decency to simply disagree with Christianity rather than insist that Christianity take on assumptions that its founder and early disciples never intended.

On another note, "heresy" is not just a nasty label that people place on ideas they don't like. It is the act of claiming that a belief jives with a particular worldview when in truth it does not. Drawing on a previously cited example, personal property rights is a heresy under Marxism. This doesn't mean that Marxists or Christians or Hindus should each be of one mindset. There's plenty of room for disagreement under each of these philosophies. But each philosophy has its non-negotiables, and any organization dedicated to furthering specific ideologies is justified in making sure that its officials support the mission statement.

The CU president, a medieval scholar, told the Herald that she was thinking back to the 14th century poet Geoffrey Chaucer.

About that time, Hoffman began to cry.

As I pointed out in the first article, the dreaded "C-word" is a curse word even in the Miller's Tale. And that was not an apology, as she was sorry she got flustered, not that she thought she was wrong.

It sort of amazes me that a reasonably asked question by a reporter upsets her, but a vicious verbal assault on a women, in conjunction with sexual misconduct doesn't seem to bother her enough to condemn it in court.

The flap over the deposition drew a full range of reaction from CU regents and one of the commissioners who recently investigated CU's athletic department.

"I see it as a combination of siege mentality and academic myopia about the real world," St. Joan said.

I think that is an excellent way of describing what happened. She got in over her head, panicked and fired off a boner. Er. What I meant to say was that her remark was not well thought out and made her seem unsympathetic. Whew.

Regent Jim Martin said he understood the context of Hoffman's remarks and the reference to Chaucer but added that he found Hoffman's reply "totally inappropriate."

"That is a vulgar word. She could have just admitted that," Martin said. "To dig in her heels only further tarnishes the reputation of this university."

See folks, Jim got it exactly right. Perhaps CU is not in such bad hands after all.

Now I'm going to let President Hoffman think about what she said, and let her decide to use the proper word--sorry.

He repeated a phrase from a 2000 document in which he first asked pardon "for errors committed in the service of truth through use of methods that had nothing to do with the Gospel."

The truth was that the Church was happy to exterminate Jews, gypsies, scientists, and the occasional "witch". I don't see that much has changed, except, since you guys are not running Western Europe you don't get to put the thumbscrews on any more.

That was shorthand for torture, summary trials, forced conversions and burnings at the stake.

That's what I was saying.

But in the letter, the pope went further, saying the request for forgiveness was for "both the dramas connected to the Inquisition as well as for the wounds to the (collective) memory that followed."

I have to wonder why the Pope thinks the Church deserves forgiveness, or how any can be given to them? I guess the world Jewish population could do that, and maybe the modern Wiccans could bring the love. But, I don't see why they would.

A chart showed that Germany was where more male and female "witches" were killed by civilian tribunals around the start of the 15th century. Some 25,000 people of the then population of 16 million, were killed. But the percentage record went to Lichtenstein, where 300 people, or some 10 percent of the tiny population of 3,000, were killed for convictions of witchcraft.

Way to rack up the blessed numbers! I bet they got frequent angel miles.

Professor Agostino Borromeo, the book's editor, said fewer people were actually killed by the Inquisition than commonly believed.

Huh, what number do we commonly believe? I personally never had an exact figure in mind.

He said that only about 1.8 percent of those investigated by the Spanish Inquisition were killed. Mannequins were burned to represent those tried in absentia and condemned to death.

Hey, Agostino, how many people were killed and their deaths not recorded? Or how many tortured, recanted, and were let go? And why punish the garment industry by taking their mannequins and burning them? I'm pretty sure God can tell the difference between a burned dummy and a immolated "heretic".

Cardinal Georges Cottier was asked why the Vatican did not condemn past popes who had sanctioned the Inquisition.

Because we don't say bad things about the dead, especially when they are true. That hurts their feelings. Plus, we hate confession, as it is not good for the soul.

"When we ask for forgiveness we don't condemn. We are all conditioned by the mentality of our times. Fifty years from now we may be accused of not seeing certain things," he said.

Ah, don't tell us we were wrong, just let us cry on your shoulder, and give us some candy. I'm happy to accuse the Vatican of things they are doing wrong now, I don't plan on waiting 50 years.

Edit: Reader John Anderson has an excellent point:
"Oh? And the other 98.2% got off free? I somehow doubt any prosecutor with that record would last a year, let alone centuries. "

We all know that the definition of a cunt is either slang for the female genitalia or a swear word used on a woman you don't like. Urbandictionary.com suggests that it is the most offensive word in the English language.

I would have loved to have done the cross exam on her. I think it would have gone something like this.

SS: Mrs. Hoffman one of the victims in this case stated that during the assault she was called a cunt by her attackers. Don’t you think the use of this word indicates that she was being assaulted, rather than voluntarily engaging in sex with the defendant?

Hoffman: No, I don’t think that word, has to express that idea.

SS: Mrs. Hoffman, you don’t think cunt is a pejorative term? A swear word?

Hoffman: No, some times it could be used as swear word and sometimes not. The meaning can change depending on the circumstances of how it is used.

SS: Really? Did you husband every call you a cunt, say just after you made Christmas dinner for the whole family? Just to be affectionate?

Opposing Counsel: Objection!

SS: I don’t see how that’s objectionable, she just got done saying it doesn’t have to be a swear word.

Judge: Mr. Saporito….

SS: I’d like some latitude your honor, so she can clarify how it can be used in a friendly way.

Judge: Very well, but, keep it brief.

SS: So, it could be used differently than as a swear word?

Hoffman: Yes, I've actually heard it used as a term of endearment. The current use of the word has "negative connotations" but in its original use, centuries ago, it was not a negative. As a medieval scholar, I am aware of the long history of the word dating back to at least Chaucer. He used the word in "The Canterbury Tales."

SS: Mrs. Hoffman, I took Chaucer in college. If you used cunny or cunt in regular conversation you would not just pass it off like that. Polite society didn’t just drop that word at tea.

Hoffman: I’m telling you they did.

SS: Chaucer used fart and piss and they still are dirty words today. There was a lot of “ribald humor” in his work that was not acceptable in polite society.

For example there is a scene in Canterbury Tales where a man leans out a window and farts in another guys face. That man happens to be a blacksmith, so he goes to his forge and gets a red hot coal, pulls it out with tongs and goes back to the farter’s house. When the farter tries it again the smith shoves the hot coal up the man’s ass.

Would you call that a classic gesture of friendship and good will if this was a trial for fraternity hazing where that took place?

Opposing Counsel: Objection!

SS: That’s all, no more questions for the cunt your honor.

Yes, that last one would have gotten me sanctioned and disciplined. Because cunt really is a bad word, no matter what spin you put on it.

But not nearly as bad as a women who tries to excuse the crimes of these men simply so her school can continue competing in football. We all know what name she deserves.

Yes it's true - I can barely be bothered to get my panties in a bunch over the rough treatment of Fedayeen Saddam members. I also have trouble crying over the rough time ranking terrorists are having. Their dream for me is to see my head on the floor in front of their master's house, so if they aren't sleeping much, and their beans and Halal weenies are served cold and they are being made to shave every day, as I am, well, let's just say I'm not sympathetic.

One such ticking bomb for whom I feel little sympathy is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Ohio and New York plots he directed with Faris and Iyman, had they come off, would have been really nasty. How many people would get killed when the Holland Tunnel flooded, or worse yet, burned? (One way of taking it out would be to blow a propane or gas truck inside of it - mmm, burning to death trapped in your car in traffic. Now there's a lovely way to die, huh?)

That would have just killed hundreds or thousands of commuters, though. That is adult casualties. We can handle lots of dead adults. We seemed to get over a couple hundred or a few thousand dead adults pretty quick in the past; no reason another big Al Qaida attack wouldn't be just the same. But the really pretty thing to contemplate here is Mohammed's shopping mall plot. Can you imagine that at Christmas? I'm sure it would involve multiple bombs; that's what Al Qaida seems to prefer. So Faris and his minion Abdi could take out the Williams Sonoma (decadent pigs), the Abercrombie & Fitch (pornography... filth) and maybe the Santa sleigh and the hundred or so pre-schoolers lined up to visit Santa (debased idolaters... infidels... larval crusaders).

Phil Carter (and a lot of others, to be fair) is in a big hissy fit not only over torture, but over naked questioning, sleep deprivation, cold meals, and Rumsfeld's barbarism - you know, shaving the beard of Islamic terrorists. It's not only illegal in his view (which is an overly broad reading of the Geneva Conventions and Anti-Torture Convention, and not yet accepted in any court, anywhere) but immoral.

So you make the call.

You are a CIA operative. You have just captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaida's operations officer. You know full well that he has knowledge of all major Al Qaida operational plans, including probably massive attacks in the U.S. You've got dribs and drabs of intelligence from less knowledgeable persons, from scraps of intercepted phone calls, that hint at what he knows. But Khalid, he ain't talking.

What do you do?

Here in America, we always say, "better that 10 (or a hundred, or a thousand) guilty men go free, than an innocent man be punished. Do we really mean that?

If so, then please tell me, how many thousand people are you willing to watch being immolated, in order to keep your hands and impeccable liberal conscience clear? How many kids are you willing to get killed with rat-poisoned nail bombs in a shopping mall, so that you can earn the approval of the French chattering classes?

Do you give up the Holland Tunnel or some other major edifice in New York?

How about some more jets, and a couple skyscrapers - maybe the Sears Tower in Chicago?

Say you decide the risks are unacceptable, so you beat Khalid up a bit, you dunk him under the water, and he coughs to the Holland Tunnel plot. You also know from Khalid's emails that his boys, Faris and Abdi, live in Ohio. Shit. What's there that he could be interested in? A couple ball parks. Hmmm. Do you risk the parks? Any refineries?

The problem is, you don't have enough to arrest those two, or the resources to follow them. How can you stop them? What is the cost of inaction? How about the power plants? They're mostly coal, but there are a few nuke plants within a couple hours' drive. That would be nasty. What about the schools and malls? You can't very well pick up Abdi and Faris; they're in the U.S. They will lawyer up in a heartbeat, the ACLU will be on your ass, not to mention CAIR, Carl Levin and the rest... no, that won't work. If they have pals, you'd have no sure way of rolling up their network.

So there you are, holding Khalid in some dingy warehouse in Iraq, or Saudi, or Egypt, and he won't talk, and you know that he knows about all sorts of attack plans.

What do you do?

Come on Phil - what are you willing to sacrifice, to preserve the evidentiary value of Khalid's plans, and to stick to your moral high ground?

Are you willing to give up a few hundred 15 year-olds, a bunch of shopping mommies and a ton of pre-schoolers in that Ohio mall?

How about a couple thousand commuters in the Holland Tunnel? Is that worth ensuring you don't have a queasy stomach?

I'm not saying I'm sold on the notion of torture, but frankly, the more I hear about beheadings, the widespread sympathy of many Moslems for the terrorists, and the apocalyptic vision they have for us, the more I think Professor Dershowitz might be right. He says we need to admit we need to do it, Congress needs to regulate it, courts need to oversee it, and it has to be carefully regulated.

I don't give a shit that evidence we gain in harsh interrogation, or flat out torture, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed won't be admissible. I want to save the lives of dozens, maybe thousands of people. And I'm not willing to take a lot of chances. This isn't a burglary, or a gambling ring, or a simple manslaughter plot we're talking about. It's mass murder on an apocalyptic scale that we seek to prevent.

I wish there was a moral high ground on this issue that would allow us to defend our country as well. I don't think there is. I think we're in a fight to the death, and only the other guys know it, and have really internalized that fact. The terrorists, these religious lunatics with their masturbatory fantasies of death, don't play by our rules. Quite frankly, when we have a high value target like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I'm surprised our operatives show the discipline they do.

Want to wet your pants? Want to know what Khalid and his pals are up to? Here's the real moment of moral clarity for you. Read this MEMRI.org translation of the Arabic language news accounts of the recent slaughter of foreigners in Saudi Arabia. That's what we're up against.

What is clear to me, is that the evidentiary value of what we get from ranking terrorists doesn't matter. What matters, is that we get the information from them that enables us to save the lives of those who don't hate us, to roll up their terror networks, to kill them if we can't capture them, to destroy their organization, their belief system, and their operational ability. We need to eliminate them like the plague-carrying vermin they are. Throw them on the scrap heap of society. They do not have a valid point. They are insane killers, destroyers, the wreckers of civilization. Their idea of heaven, is mid-80's Beirut, only with less fun, and the women locked up, and the gays crushed.

So when you get right down to it, maybe I am having a moment of clarity myself. I don't give a flying fuck that some CIA operative held Khalid's head under the water. In fact, if I was there, I'd be suggesting we pull out some fingernails and lop off some toes, and then warm up a blowtorch and some pliers. The man is plotting the death of thousands, and all we care about is his rights.

Before you write me off as a hopelessly immoral bestial fiend, I would ask that you consider this. Perhaps there is something more to a sense of morals than considering the fine points of ethics as it pertains to one person. Perhaps the well being of thousands, or of millions, must occasionally be weighed against the good of the individual determined to destroy them. How many lives are you willing to risk so that you can sleep really well at night, and go to nice cocktail parties with your liberal friends?

Frankly, with each American or European beheaded, with each corpse mutilated and burned, my threshold gets lower and lower.

You may want to think about this. I know it's unpleasant, but somehow, I don't think the problem will pass us by, no matter how deeply we imbed our heads in the sand. In the next election or two, our politicians will have to be able to answer this question. Deferring it forever isn't going to work - and if Professor Dershowitz is correct, and I think he is - then it's better we deal with this honestly, and within the confines of our laws. Otherwise, it will be hidden, and underground, and I'm not sure we can do it that way, without seriously corrupting ourselves. We shouldn't lie about torture. Nor should we allow it to become prevalent, or to grow unchecked, or to be used on low value prisoners. But by God, if that's what it takes to keep nukes out of New York, and weaponized Ebola out of Chavez Ravine, then that's what we need to do. I'm not entirely convinced we are at that point; but if not, we're getting close.

[Edited for clarity. I wrote the first draft after a 15 hour work day]

Exhibit 'A' is from the Melbourne 'Age', and it isn't even a local production. The editor of the paper actually commissioned this from someone outside the newspaper. It is a pretty average commentary on the domestic political impact of the Iraqi conflict.

But what got my eye was the details about the contributor:

Albert Langer has supported "regime change" or "revolution" since Vietnam in the 1960s, and was imprisoned for encouraging votes against both major parties in Australia in the 1990s. He writes for www.lastsuperpower.net

You might not be aware that you can be imprisoned for encouraging votes against both major parties in Australia. I must admit that I'm not aware of it either. I suspect that we are not being told the full story about Mr Langer.

Thanks to Google, though, I find he's "one of Australia's most unorthodox Marxists", which I suspect means he never did get tenure, and his site is a total crankfest where he writes inspiring prose like

Either our enemies will succeed in establishing photos of American and British oppressors taking over Saddam's torture chambers as the iconic image for the war.

Or

We will swiftly replace those images, not with mealy mouthed apologies or token sackings but something more vivid that can really capture the imagination of the Iraqi people and others long oppressed by tyrants.

Only one image can turn this around.

Senior US military officers responsible for this treacherous undermining of the war effort must be put on trial for their lives and given a free fair and public trial by general Court Martial.

Then those found guilty must be lined up against the wall and shot.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not- an Australian newspaper which is celebrating its 150th year is happy to hand over valuable Op/Ed space to a complete crank.

Maybe it is just following in the tradition of its older Sydney stablemate, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has been printing the ravings of Margo Kingston and her friends for a long time.

Margo has been in fine form lately which is making her fodder for bloggers. Who can blame them when we are asked to take seriously a journalist who does not even have a basic command of the English language?

Given media standards such as this, it is no wonder that the quality of Australia's public life is in the state that it is.

Anyhow, I tried to trace back the controversy - which was ginned up, and not much of a controversy according to legal ethics experts - back to a Mr. Savage. I rather stupidly attributed it to Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe.

The email through Sasha, from Mr. Charlie Savage, pointed out that this was a mistake, he never wrote such a column, and he hadn't a clue where I would have gotten such a "bizzare" notion, that he could have written something like that. After all, Mr. Savage is a member of the Globe's Washington Bureau. So it's just a bizzare mistake I made in my "rant" - as Mr. Savage said.

First, I'm flattered he stopped by here. Good thing you google, sir. It will keep you ahead of the bloggers looking to rip your work to shreds.

Second, by way of clarification, the author of the article I pointed to was in fact David Savage, a member of the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times. I didn't link, because the LA Times requires something just short of a rectal exam to register, and frankly, I didn't think linking to it was that important.

Third, I apologize for calling Charlie Savage biased, and stating that he is known to be biased. I meant Dan Savage. Dan is biased biased biased. Dan leans so far to the left, that Robert Scheer thinks he needs to back it off a notch.

Not Mr. Charlie Savage, however. His articles, in retrospect, look pretty decently balanced - for instance this article. Or this, which gets it about right as far as I can tell. Or this, which as far as I see is a better analysis of the cases in question than Linda Greenhouse managed.

Like Mr. (Charlie) Savage said, it's completely bizzare that I could have mistaken him for somebody else in one of my rants.

I, for one, haven't a clue how I would have confused a Mr. David Savage from the Washington Bureau of the LA Times, with Mr. Charlie Savage from the Washinton Bureau of the Boston Globe.

So, to everybody who is named Mr. Savage, I've learned my lesson. I'll follow the example of the major papers - such as the Globe, and when I get something wrong, I'll abjectly abase myself, beg your forgiveness for having breached the sacred trust between writer and reader; implore you to keep paying good money for my product; and I will openly wonder for a while if I should quit writing as a result of this bizzare error.

That's what the NY Times and the Globe do, right?

Awww, nevermind. Sorry Charlie. Thanks for straightening out the record, and I'll try to keep my Savages sorted out in the future. Keep up the good work - you seem to be reporting things pretty straight and accurate as far as I can tell - which is better than I managed in that entry, at least as to your identity.

Australian bookstores are fairly solemn sorts of places, where the staff have been known to look at you funny if you make an excessive amount of noise. The atmosphere is generally akin to that of a public library, and it struck me today that the staff of bookshops tend to resemble librarians as well.

This was especially noticable at the second hand book stores. Here, you may pick up a bargain read for not much at all, but you might also pick up some real collectors items. My eye was caught be a complete set of Sir Winston Churchill's complete history of the Second World War, which I would imagine would complement my own library rather well.

Some indeterminate haggling failed to get this set in my possession.

The staff at the second hand places are really serious bookworms. These are people who appeared to me to be people who are doing it for the sheer love of books- in appearance in one shop were two slightly elderly gentlemen (shall we say, mid 50's?), frightfully well dressed and well spoken, who spoke in hushed terms, even though I was the only customer in the shop.

Heaven forbid that we should be discussing such a sordid thing as a commercial transaction; rather, it was the acquisition of knowlege and prestige that comes with owning such a prestigious set of volumes.

It could be a forbidding atmosphere to Joe Bookreader, though I quite like it when people talk to me in hushed, almost reverend tones.

Disappointed but not despondent, I set out to a place where I could not hope for hushed tones; I set out for Borders, the all encompassing American chain of bookstores which is doing for retail bookselling what Amazon.com is doing for online bookselling. I had a couple of books that I specifically wished to purchase. I could have bought them from Amazon but that would take a month to get out to me.

The place was packed. The store is not actually superior to other bookstores in competition to it, but it actually goes out of the way to make shopping there a friendly and pleasant experience (if you don't mind the fact that it's kinda crowded). The store is set out in an aesthetically pleasing way, there is a cafe where you can enjoy a coffee and a slice of cake while you peruse your new purchase, and there are people who are paid to provide actual assistance full time to you in searching for that hard to find volume.

They did not have the books I wanted. I would have called for such assistance, but they were, well, busy. I did tell you that it was packed out.

Oh well. So I marched off to Dymocks, a much more traditional store which is about 50 meters down the Rundle Mall. Dymocks did have the books that I was after, and I wound my way through a rather empty looking store, and paid for them (without waiting in a queue) to the rather librarianish looking shop assistant.

There was no earthly reason why one store should be nearly empty and the other nearly bursting with customers. There is little price variation in the book trade, and Dymocks store had just as much range if not better.

You can put the whole difference down to the fact that Borders works much harder at making their stores a place that people want to be at.

What I find curious is that Borders have been in Adelaide for at least two years, and seem to be dominating the market. Yet in that time, the Dymocks store hasn't changed at all. This lack of change may mean that Dymocks haven't actually noticed that their market share of books has changed- they may still be selling the same amount of books that they always did, and that Borders is simply attracting a whole new group of people into buying books.

This doesn't really make sense on the surface but I can't come up with any other explaination as to why Dymocks have not made any changes at all.

Or it could just be that they are clueless. I used to work in an internet hosting company and we hosted their webserver. The guy running it didn't know the difference between a router and a hub. I suppose in commerce it never pays to underestimate the clueless factor.

The 30-minute videos are the latest in a series of health initiatives from McDonald's as it tries to position itself as a health advocate at a time when rising obesity rates have drawn lawsuits and criticism to the fast-food industry.

McDonald's is not, never will be, the first choice in healthy foods. They might as well just stick to offering some salads and reduce the amount of horse lips in the burgers and leave it at that.

The new videos will be produced in multiple languages and distributed by Warner Home Video in stores beginning in spring 2005, Oak Brook, Illinois-based McDonald's said. Warner Home Video is a unit of Warner Bros. Studios, owned by entertainment conglomerate Time Warner Inc.

Will these videos be for sale, or given away with purchases? If for sale I think that they will have a massive loss on this project in exchange for minimal positive PR. If given away I can only hope that the things are not copy protected and I can record something over it. Alton Brown or Emeril shows strike me as healthy and fun alternatives.

The videos will not be available in McDonald's restaurants.

What? You just said they would be available in the previous paragraph, you moron. They have to be available at the restaurants, because no one is going to go to Blockbuster to rent them, or Target to buy them. In the future either get your story straight, or use common sense when you edit your work. I swear journalism is dead.

Just like you kids will be if you believe all that crap in Ronald's video about the health benefits of Supersizing.

Look, this is not a seven layer dip we are talking about. How about some concrete ideas?

Worst hands? You mean like Iran and North Korea? The U.N. is doing a great job there, so no need to worry yourself, John. Why any day now I expect they might find their own asses.

When a nuclear WWIII breaks out in the Middle East or the Korean Peninsula, I'm sure we will all be sure to say your layered strategy worked great.

Kerry called for building and leading a new era of alliances, modernizing the U.S. military, making full use of American diplomatic, intelligence and economic power, and freeing the nation from its dependence on Mideast oil.

John, you have no interest in modernizing the military, which is already near the cutting edge, you've stated time and again that you want to stop or reduce military spending on Research and Development. You think U.S. intelligence assets have too much power and should be scaled back.

As for freeing us from Mideast Oil, that is a great idea. Too bad you oppose nuclear energy and the current Green solutions are not there yet. I also recall you being against off shore drilling and tapping the Alaskan oil reserves. Personally I'm against that too, which is why I think nuclear power is still the way to go.

If we secure all bomb-making materials, ensure that no new materials are produced for nuclear weapons, and end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran, we will dramatically reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism," he said.

Right. Like I said, the way to stop new production of nuclear materials is to shut down nuclear "breeder" reactors, which then means less energy and more dependence of foreign oil supplies.

How exactly are you going to stop the weapons programs in Iran and North Korea? You have no diplomatic levers to pull there, and you are against force of any kind. Or maybe you are for it, but forgot to tell us, and changed your minds, before you forgot to tell us, but now want to not not use force.

Kerry said securing weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union would be a priority in relations between the United States and Russia, and he proposed working with U.S. allies to establish global standards for safekeeping nuclear materials. As president, Kerry said, he would also lead an international coalition seeking a global ban on production of material for new nuclear weapons.

It's a priority now, and has been under two presidents. Perhaps you didn't notice that we have spent a great deal of money dismantling Russian nukes and trying to employ Russian scientists?

As for stopping production of nuclear material you are dooming developing countries to poverty that are either dependent on Middle East oil, or have no oil supplies of their own. Cheap, nuclear energy from light water or even breeder reactors are the ways for them to get electricity.

To help reduce existing stocks of nuclear materials and weapons, the United States should stop developing a new generation of nuclear weapons and speed up reductions in the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, Kerry said.

Yes, because Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Korea and France would never lie to us about their weapons programs, so we should just stop right now.

Ending nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea also would be a priority, Kerry said, and he proposed closing the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows those countries and others to use civilian nuclear power programs as cover for weapons development.

How exactly will you get North Korea to abide by the NNPT? Harsh language? Iran is running rings around the U.N.'s minimal efforts to document their nuclear programs AND they are developing stealth missiles so that they can deliver a nuclear payload into Israel. Did you plan on approving a U.S. or U.N. force invade Iran to stop them?

Toughening export controls, stiffening penalties and strengthening law enforcement and intelligence sharing would help the United States prevent trafficking in bomb-making materials and components, Kerry said. He pledged to appoint a national coordinator to focus on securing nuclear weapons and materials around the world.

You don't support increased spending on intelligence assets, so how would you know if export controls were being violated? Do you know how many cargo ships their are in the world? How many billion and billions of tons of goods that are moved every day? There is no way to search every ship, let alone every container for contraband weapons.

Sharing intelligence with allies, like France, resulted in them selling the information to Iraq and Iran. Do you think that will change? The Palestinians are some of the leading bomb builders and trainers in the world. Are you going to stop US aid to them, and allow Israel to take a hard line against them?

Your national coordinator idea. Where is he in the chain of command? Homeland Security, State Department, FBI/CIA? How many people will this new Executive Agency require? Where will the money come from to pay for it?

We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore - and that mission begins far away," Kerry said. "We have to
secure nuclear weapons and materials around the world so that searching the containers here at the Port of Palm Beach isn't our only line of defense, it
is our last line of defense.

I agree whole heartedly. Which means saber rattling, economic sanctions, blockades and military force if necessary. Unfortunately the U.N. and many of our "allies" don't favor those approaches. Were you planning on going it alone, making the hard choices, unilaterally, if necessary? If not then you may have to forget the whole deal.

Ashton Carter, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Clinton administration, said Bush pursues nuclear supplies a bit at a time and country by country. Kerry would accelerate the process by getting rid of all supplies at once, Carter said in remarks on behalf of the Kerry campaign.

That may be the dumbest thing I ever heard. How, even assuming dozens of sovereign nations are going to just turn over their nuclear stockpiles to us, are we going to collect, safeguard, store and dispose of millions of tons of radioactive material, waste products, and equipment? Perhaps Kerry was thinking of having Superman throw all that stuff into the Sun?

How will we silence scientists to prevent them from selling their secrets? Re-education camps?

How will we provide alternate sources of power to billions of people? Even in Massachusetts they don't want windmills cluttering up the landscape. And all the other forms of alternate power are pretty much useless. Take a look at this for a realistic look at alt energy.

As for the starving, freezing and in the dark billions, I guess they will be all warm and toasty inside knowing they are doing their bit for international cooperation.

Have candidate Kerry get back to me when he's not in the dark on this issue.

As in previous years, Ontario was the third-biggest polluting jurisdiction on the continent after North Carolina and Ohio, says the report by the Commission for Environmental Co-operation.

That's a statistic comparing apples to apples as all are manufacturing centers and the base population in January 2000 was around 11.5 million in both Ontario and Ohio.

Canada's poorer record in curbing toxics is probably due to the lack of federal air-quality legislation, William Kennedy, executive director of the commission, said in an interview. The U.S. Clean Air Act sets binding regulations for air polluters, but Ottawa depends mainly on voluntary and negotiated agreements.

That's an interesting point. Canada relies on "corporate responsibility" to police emission. Personally I don't think most corporations toe the line out of the goodness of their heart and you have to crack the whip for them to do the right thing. In the USA the EPA mandates and enforces the rules. The US laws have some decent teeth, and some fairly clear regulations to follow. Canada looks like they sort of wing it, and their Pollution Pigeons are coming home to roost.

I also wonder how Canada would have followed the dictates of the Kyoto Treaty, if they could not enforce the reduction of Greenhouse Gases and toxic emissions? Another case of socialist fantasy failing to live up to the capitalist reality.

Canada needs to deal with this issue now before they become the Gross Black North.

Born in 1960, the first presidential election I could vote in was 1980. I paid little attention to politics, but I knew that Reagan had promised to deliver a 30% across-the-board tax cut. (He would be able to get away with 25%, phased in over three years.) Tax liberation was good a reason as any to vote for the guy.

Another was Jimmy Carter's political impotence. He couldn't do anything to fix the economy - basically because a) he's a statist, and b) he wouldn't listen to Paul Volcker, who knew how to fix inflation and proceeded to do so without seeking presidential approval. In Free to Choose Milton Friedman stated that only drastic cuts in the money supply would solve inflation, and that the long-term fix wouldn't come without a short-term recession - and that's exactly what happened.

The tax cuts eased the recession, and despite the S&L; fiasco and some tax compromises in 1986 we would witness the greatest post-WWII expansion of the US economy. The tax hikes by GHW Bush and Bill Clinton would eventually stop that expansion in 2000.

In foreign policy, Carter was a wuss. I remember his tepid reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: "This could be war." (Johnny Carson retorted, "That's like calling D-Day trespassing on a private beach.") And above all I remember the Iranian hostage crisis - and the failed rescue mission that relied on helicopters not suited for desert travel. I didn't know much else about foreign policy. In his post-presidential years he would negotiate with tyrants by appealing to their better natures - which they didn't have; I imagine he did a bit of the same when he was in the White House.

I did know one foreign policy difference between carter and Reagan; the latter took the offense in fighting the Cold War - and fighting other tyrannies. Both presidents negotiated worthless arms treaties that only the US would honor. Angola was and is a quagmire where the good guys (or the lesser of the evils, whichever the case may be) didn't have enough support, from the US or elsewhere. I would like to have seen the Gipper depose Qadaffi rather than give him a multiwarhead spanking, but Congress probably wouldn't have let him get away with it. (Maybe we could have helped Italy reconquer Libya?) Neither would it have approved the necessary actions - which would have included a war with Syria - to succeed in Lebanon.

The turning point of the Cold War was in our back yard. Nicaragua and Grenada were liberated from Communism, one peacefully (after years of supporting several opposition factions, known collectively as the Contras) and one through a brief war. This was the first time that Communist expansion was turned back.

The seeds of revolution had been spreading in Eastern Europe without our help. The role of the US was to take away the will and the might of the Soviet Union to crack down on dissident movements as it had done in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956. The arms race bankrupted the USSR; the same level of military spending cost the US far less of its GDP than that of the Soviets. SDI forced Gorbachev to scramble for a Plan B.

Without Reagan, perestroika and glasnost may never have come into being. Soviet tanks would not roll into Eastern Europe to suppress Solidarity in Poland, the Civic Forum in Czechoslovakia, or various dissident movements elsewhere. Gorby tried to have a dose of freedom while preserving Communism - what Alexandr Dubcek once called "socialism with a human face" - but the people would not settle for a mere dose. The Communist governments could not turn back that tide.

On November 9, 2009, I hope to be standing within sight of the Brandenburg Gate for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I will remember Reagan's call to Gorbachev to tear down the wall, and the events that both - one intentionally and the other inadvertently - would set in motion to make it happen.

On a whimsical note, I remember once seeing in a newspaper a photo of Reagan wearing his typical business suit and carrying a surfboard under his arm. If anyone can track down that image, I'd be grateful.

Ever wondered how high you could stack shit? Check out this impeccably dishonest little anti-Bush video game, and find out.

Speaking of dishonest, Atrios today "proves" that Clinton was the most popular president ever, using some combination of polling, and cryptic comments. All this in an effort to disprove the commentary on Ron Reagan being popular.

Of course the man he boost, slickdick Willy Jefferson, never polled more than about 43% of the population in a presidential poll. In Reagan's closest presidential victory in 1980, he carried 50.7% of the popular vote (to 40% for Carter), plus 10 times the electoral votes that Carter won, carrying 44 out of 50 states.

In 1984, Reagan won the electoral vote 524-13 over Walter Mondale, with nearly 60% of the popular vote, and winning 48 states.

Compare to Slick Willy's 1992 win, a 370 - 168 electoral vote margin over Bush 41, and his 43% - 37% popular vote margin (with votes bleeding mainly from Bush to Ross Perot's 19% showing. Slick Willy pulled roughly 32 states.

In 1996, Clinton faced the poorly run Dole campaign. Surely, he beat the piss out of Dole and shamed Reagan's legacy, right? Well, not exactly. Clinton pulled just under 50% to Dole's 42%, and Perot's 8%. He pulled around 400 electoral votes, to Dole's approximately 150. Clinton also took 31 states, to Dole's 19.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton wasn't as popular as Reagan. Clinton at his best pulled nearly as much of the popular vote as Reagan's worst election, but still didn't come close in the electoral vote, or states carried. Clinton's best doesn't compare to Reagan's best; Clinton's lesser performance in 1992 isn't anywhere near to Reagan's awesome reelection totals.

But that's okay. If Atrios wants to redefine popularity, I suppose he can redefine popularity any way he wants. It's a free world.

But in the only measure that counts, votes tallied - Reagan wins hands down.

(Re: those fact listed above: Infoplease - Info thanks.)

And speaking of the left's delusions, what's this stuff about the vast right wing conspiracy criticizing George Soros?

Hey guys, there's no conspiracy here. If one of our guys dropped $15 billion to try to buy a presidential election, the left would be so hysterical that you'd have to bring fainting couches to Nader events. One of their guys does it, and all of a sudden it's a noble, patriotic effort. Um, okay, sure, whatever you say. Just to be clear - our guy spends a lot of money, it's buying an election, and proof the system is corrupt. Your guy spends an absolute freaking cosmic ass-load of money, and it's proof of his patriotism and that his vision is uncorrupted.

Or in other words, right for me, F.U. to thee.

Talk about your principled political parties...

The basic difference between the United States and the Islamofascists, is that the U.S. will, on occasion, burn a village to save the villagers. The Islamofascists, on the other hand, like to burn villages just for the hell of it. Hopefully with the villagers still in them.

If you aren't reading Lileks' Bleat every day, there may be something wrong with you.

Women's professional basketball? Sorry ladies. It's so bad that I just might turn into a mysogynist, were anybody to force me to watch four quarters. Hell, it's nearly as bad as watching Men's pro basketball. And that's more or less like that scene in Clockwork Orange where our hero has his eyes propped open, while being forced to look at some post modern pastiche art.

"Re-elect Boone County Commissioner" reads the ad, indicating: "Chairman of the Board past 5 years; 8 years of experience in county leadership; Would appreciate your vote on June 8; Paid for by the candidate."

Those are the credentials of Bill Boone, chairman of the Washington County commissioners.

Apparently the add left off copy cat, lying politician, and scumbag from the list.

He is ineligible to run for re-election because he works for the U.S. Postal Service in Eastport. As a federal employee, he is prohibited from running in a partisan election under the federal Hatch Act.

OK, he can't run legally, so this must be an end run around the law.

When he ran for re-election in 1997 and 2001, he did not realize he was breaking federal law. After an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel in Washington, D.C., which investigates violations of the Hatch Act, he was allowed to finish his term.

Wow, not just an end run, this is a too many men on the field, illegal candidate downfield, and unsportsmanlike like conduct, extravaganza. He's already violated the law, twice and got caught, and was for some reason, allowed to finish out his term, and he wants another bite at the apple? This must be some job if he wants it that bad and he must have some sort of diminutive reproductive neurosis that he's compensating for.

Bill Boone hopes his wife wins election as county commissioner, because if she does, he said she will resign immediately from the four-year seat which pays a $285-a-month stipend after taxes.

Your wife has no intention of serving the post she gets elected to and then you come in an make a mockery of the system by stepping in to help out. I don't think this is the type of government the people of Maine deserve.

At that point, Bill Boone would be hopeful of gaining an appointment from the governor's office back to the commissioner's bench.

In Maine vacancies among county commissioners are appointed by the governor. What, does that mean the Governor is on this little scam? That's disturbing that it is not just a local cancer, but it goes up to the top.

"There is nothing confusing or deceiving about this ad," Bill Boone said Thursday. "I don't work that way."

Every single word is a filthy lie, Bill. I guess your moral compass is just spinning too fast for you to get a bead on things.

It doesn't say my wife's name, because it doesn't have to. There is no state law against this."

It doesn't say you wife's name because you hope to confuse people into voting for her. I'm sure that the is a law against using someone else's record and also circumventing election laws. You just are as ignorant or corrupt as the last time you got illegitimately elected.

Diana Boone, when reached at her workplace Thursday, declined to comment on the situation.

Of course she can't talk, she doesn't have her husband's hand up her shirt, right then.

From Augusta, the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices said that the state commissioners aren't touching this issue.

You cowardly, buck passing, spineless morons.

The commissioners believe this is a matter for the public's opinion," said Jonathan Wayne, the executive director for what is commonly called the Maine Ethics Commission. "It's between the candidates and the voters.

It should be commonly referred to as the Maine Ethically Challenged Commission. This is your call and you blew it massively. You betrayed the public trust by allowing a misleading add and a straw candidate to stand for election.

Wayne said that Bill Boone had checked with his office on the legality of what his wife intended to do within the ad. Wayne told Boone that "the commission does not make judgments about the appropriateness of language in political advertisements.

Excuse me, exactly what do you do then Wayne? Let me guess, three hour lunches on the public dime and the occasional meeting to assuage your conscience.

Wayne said Thursday he had also taken calls from some of Diana Boone's opponents concerning the ads and that the commission "would not be taking action based on those telephone complaints."

Apparently you and Bill are the only ones who are confused about the ads and the fake candidacy, Wayne.

But, don't worry the Governor will see right through this!

"Lee Umphrey, Gov. John Baldacci's spokesman, said earlier this week that if there is a Washington County vacancy created by the resignation of a commissioner who is elected as a Democrat, the governor would ask the Washington County Democratic Committee to recommend two or three candidates. Based on that, Baldacci would make his choice."

Or not.

Wait, I know the 4th Estate, will shine the light of Truth and Justice on this!

Diana and Bill Boone placed the ad in the May 28 edition of the Quoddy Tides, a weekly newspaper published in Eastport. Edward French, the Quoddy Tides publisher, said he accepted the ad for publication with only a short-lived hesitation.

"I talked it over with the Boones, and they said they had checked with the Secretary of State's Office, whether the ad was legal or misleading. They said they were told where it doesn't mention a first name, they felt it was OK. I thought about it a bit. [Bill] had been upfront with us when we wrote an article about his wife running for the office. He has been very clear what the plan is. I had not felt there was an attempt to mislead [with the ad]."

Way to fail to fact check anything or to make a common sense decision Ed. You just took his word that the Secretary of State signed off on this? And you thought his little scheme was a good idea? No problem with the past illegal campaigns, the shady nature of the ads, or the fact that you put an article out that seems to support this whole deal? I guess standards have really dropped for journalism school in the last decade.

Then again, Ms. Cassidy, who wrote this article, seems to have plenty of common sense and probably graduated at the top of her class. I have some hope that her work will make sure that Bill Boone never gets another chance to betray the public trust. I just hope that the Governor reads her article and decides that Maine is better of without Bill Boone.